Unanswered questions on Syria

Before the United States escalates its involvement in the Syrian civil war, there should be reasonably clear answers to these questions:

* What is the United States trying to achieve?

* What actions will produce that result?

* Why do we think it will be successful?

Right now, there are not even muddled answers to those questions.

The primary argument in favor of expanded involvement is that there is a humanitarian crisis in Syria and the United States should do what it can to stop it.

Thereâ€™s no question about the humanitarian crisis, with over 70,000 dead and millions displaced from their homes. But this is not Kosovo, where the United States could bomb Serbia until Slobodan Molosevic cried uncle. This is a civil war. There is no place outside where the humanitarian crisis is occurring to take action to force Syrian despot Bashar Assad to relent. Nor any reason to believe that he would relent. Assad, with justification, believes he is in a fight to the death.

Moreover, all the actions being advocated are to increase the fighting lethality of the rebels. In the short run, an expanded U.S. role is at least as likely to exacerbate the humanitarian crisis as to relieve it.

In Libya, what was masked as a humanitarian intervention was actually intended to depose strongman Muammar Gaddafi. If deposing Assad is the U.S. objective, we shouldnâ€™t be muddling around. Tilt the balance on the battlefield enough to enable the rebels to win, the sooner the better.

But why should that be the U.S. objective? Assadâ€™s Syria was never considered a strategic threat to the United States. In fact, he and his father were the object of solicitous U.S. diplomacy going back to the Nixon administration.

Syria is a cauldron of regional conflicts and interests. The rebels are Sunni, as is about three-quarters of the country. Shiite Iran and Hezbollah fear losing the support of Assadâ€™s religiously-related Alawite regime. Sunni regional powers â€“ Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar â€“ are supporting the rebels. But there are differences between them as to which rebel groups to support and the degree to which they fear a militant Islamist government replacing Assad.

So, how does the United States pick its way through these regional subplots? And what, in our 60-year history of interventions in the Middle East, gives us reason to believe that we will do so wisely or successfully?

If Assad falls, he will almost certainly be replaced by an Islamist government of some sort. Would that be better for the United States? Who knows?Â If the United States intervenes more aggressively, can we influence the kind of government that ultimately emerges? Is there a Libyan government to our liking? The Iraqi government we midwifed is descending into sectarian authoritarianism as the country inches toward its own civil wars. The Afghan government we midwifed is illegitimate, incompetent and unstable.

The most recent argument is that we should step up our involvement to preserve credibility. This relates partially to President Obamaâ€™s â€śred lineâ€ť on the use of chemical weapons. But thereâ€™s a broader argument that if a big, regionally important fight like this breaks out and the U.S. doesnâ€™t provide leadership, it weakens our international standing. The broader argument is pernicious.

The United States has the only military in the world with truly global reach. Everyone understands that.

The United States is powerful enough that we can be consequential anyplace and anytime we choose. The question is whether we are wise enough to know when being consequential is in our national interest and when it is not.

The United States has a strategic interest in the fate of Syriaâ€™s chemical weapons. But at this point, there is no persuasive case that greater involvement in Syriaâ€™s civil war is necessary to, or even will further, that interest.

War comes with no guarantees. But before the United States climbs more deeply into one, there should be at least a reasonable likelihood that our involvement will make something important to us better. In Syria, itâ€™s hard to see that reasonable likelihood.

(column for 5.8.13)

azcentral.com has switched to the Facebook comment system on its blogs. Existing blog comments will display, but new comments will only be accepted via the Facebook comment system. To begin commenting, you must be logged into an active personal account on Facebook. Once you're logged in, you will be able to comment. While we welcome you to join conversations, readers are responsible for their comments and abuse of this privilege will not be tolerated. We reserve the right, without warning or notification, to remove comments and block users judged to violate our Terms of Service and Rules of Engagement. Facebook comments FAQ

Join thousands of azcentral.com fans on Facebook and get the day's most popular and talked-about Valley news, sports, entertainment and more - right in your newsfeed. You'll see what others are saying about the hot topics of the day.